One of the things academics do well in safety is analyse Safety. What they don’t do well is, propose practical alternatives that involve the connection of theory to practice.
The ancient Greeks knew this well and used the word ‘praxis’ as a way of learning through a special kind of practice. For Aristotle praxis was used as a technical term to articulate a particular way of knowing (gnosis) based on a specific form of activity.
For a long time, it was thought that the purpose of philosophy was to analyse the world. In philosophy, it was thought that forms of knowing (theory and practice) were different ways of being human. The ancient Greeks referred to this as theoria, meaning contemplation, and praxis, the ethical and political form of being. Theoria was oriented towards the development of wisdom and praxis was oriented towards doing, with a focus on ethical and political behaviour.
Philosophy by definition means ‘the love of wisdom’ and in the ancient world of Aristotle, Plato and Socrates, praxis deferred to wisdom.
Marx wrote in his notebooks in 1845 that: the philosophers have only interpreted the world in the past, but that the point of philosophy however, ‘is to change it.’
From the time of Marx various schools of thought in Critical and Cultural Theory (https://www.academia.edu/43003591/Critical_Theory_and_Cultural_Studies ) have moved away from a priority on contemplation to praxis. In Critical and Cultural Theory (https://www.are.na/block/3953856 ) that emerged out of Marxism, one didn’t just seek to understand social reality but to change it.
In academia, one’s philosophy is known as ‘methodology’, one’s practice is known as ‘method’. In many ways theoria and praxis remain separated in our world. We see this in the dominant body-mind debate or in the fixation in the West on brain-centrism. In the West focus remains on rationalism and the brain (theory) driving behaviour. We see this in Safety that often send workers back to the classroom or gives them more paperwork when something goes wrong. There are even groups that attach themselves to ‘brain safety’. The idea is, that accidents are caused by errors in brain thinking and that humans need to be ‘reprogrammed’. This is anchored to the idea that learning and rationality are disembodied. When one understands embodied being one understands that the word Mind means persons, not brain. In embodied knowing, we know that the brain does not direct decision making indeed, most of the time the brain is informed of what the body has decided after the decision has been made.
The disconnectedness of rationality-brain thinking is common throughout the world of risk and safety but it is not based in evidence. In some respects in safety there is no thought that safety could be done any other way than through regulation, systems and focusing on safety performance.
We see this disconnect of theory and practice pronounced by Dekker in: ‘I’m not a policy wonk’ (https://safetydifferently.com/i-am-not-a-policy-wonk/). In this he makes clear that Safety Differently theory does not need to connect to practice or method. There are no methods in Safety Differently, just as there are none in any of the so-called ‘new safety paradigms’ (NSPs) (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753523003090).
Slogans and intentions are not method. Similarly, technocratic methods such as FRAM, are just more traditional safety. Similarly, none of the NSPs articulate an ethic of ontology connected to doing. A focus on praxis must include a focus on ethical/political practice. There is no such focus in the safety world. The focus of safety is on duty and an undeclared deontological ethic (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/the-ethics-of-risk/).
In Action Research, the term praxis has become most identified with the joining of practice to theory. This was articulated by Argyris and Schon who wrote extensively on ‘espoused theory’ and ‘theory-in-use’ (https://www.academia.edu/79863555/Argyris_and_Schon_elements_of_their_models?uc-sb-sw=73168214).
At the heart of Action Research is the question: ‘what is to be done?’ This question is not so much about telling others what to do, how to organize, whom to follow, when to submit, or how to revolt but rather, what more can I do, how does what I am doing, work? It is a reflexive question about the orientation I will take and what methods I will adopt.
In the Social Psychology of Risk (SPoR), theory does not dictate to praxis, just as praxis doesn’t dictate to theory. Rather, theory and praxis are held in dialectical tension in the way they inform each other. This means that my theoria informs and learns from praxis and that my praxis implies ethical/political shaping of my theory.
In SPoR, unless a methodology also has a method, it is of little interest.
SPoR is profoundly practical and positive in all it does.
So, from the very beginning of the founding of SPoR, the question has always been about the theory/praxis dialectic. One does not rule or have priority over the other but rather each informs and educates each other.
From the very beginning of SPoR over twenty years ago, we established a curriculum (https://cllr.com.au/register-to-study/) through the Centre for Leadership and Learning in Risk (CLLR), and each module is linked to practical methods in the SPoR in the workplace. All these methods are practicable, doable and positive. The same is the structure of all books written in SPoR. They all involve critique but conclude with practical positive alternative methods for tackling risk.
A case study of how SPoR works was published in It Works, A New Approach to Risk and Safety (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/it-works-a-new-approach-to-risk-and-safety-book-for-free-download/).
A map of methodology and methods was documented in: SPoR and Semiotics, Methods to Tackle Risk (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/spor-and-semiotics/).
All SPoR publications are available for free download (https://www.humandymensions.com/shop/). This is because we believe that cost should not be an impediment to learning.
- You can see people talking about SPoR here: https://vimeo.com/1132846618
- You can see a video case study of how a large organisation transitioned to using SPoR to practice safety: https://vimeo.com/1055470757
SPoR is founded in the traditions of Critical and Cultural Theory and so from the beginning was wedded to the dialectic of theoria–praxis. You can see a map of how SPoR developed/evolved below.
SPoR methodology has very little in common with the evolution of the safety industry, with its roots in engineering, scientism or mechanistic approaches to systems and performance. This is why when most people from safety read about SPoR they don’t understand it. You can’t use a safety lens to understand SPoR.
Even when various groups document the failures in Safety there is no follow up in method. Indeed, most often all these supposed alternatives offer is a collection of slogans and intentions. Unless there is a well-articulated methodology connected to methods, most don’t know what to DO! And so, return to systems, safety performance and traditional methods over time. Indeed, it is clear that even such trends at HOP are focus on safety performance, traditional safety.
Critiques of safety may be expressed in different ways but most critiques do not go further to provide clearly articulated methods as an alternative to traditional safety, founded on systems and performance. SPoR does.
In SPoR, the focus has always been on positive, practical and doable methods.
Praxis is co-joined to theoria.
We see this in the methodology and methods of iCue. iCue is a visual verbal method for tackling risk (https://safetyrisk.net/icue-as-visual-verbal-risk-assessment-a-video/). It takes some time to learn the iCue method and quite some unlearning in safety to develop skills in iCue to an intuitive level. Those who undertake the SEEK Investigations program learn how to use this method in investigations with great results. Those undertaking such studies at the moment can testify to power and change of this course.
If you want to know more about SPoR and its methods, you can enquire here: admin@spor.com.au
Join us in Edinburgh 4-6 February 2026
If you are in Europe or North America and want to learn about SPoR you can join Dr Long and Dr Nippin Anand in Edinburgh (4-6 February 2026) to learn about SPoR and how its methods can help you better tackle risk. You can register here: https://novellus.solutions/mec-events/social-psychology-of-risk-conference-spor-europe-2026/
If you decided to join us you will be energised by all you learn because there is nothing else like this anywhere else in safety.
If you join us, you will walk away with new practical methods in how to better tackle risk.
Prof. Robert Long
Latest posts by Prof. Robert Long (see all)
- CLLR Christmas 2025 Newsletter - December 4, 2025
- Full STEAM Ahead in Safety - December 3, 2025
- Learning From Other Worlds in Risk - December 3, 2025
- Conversations Across and Within Disciplines About Transdisciplinarity - December 2, 2025
- Icing on the Safety Cake and Transdisciplinarity - December 1, 2025
Do you have any thoughts? Please share them below